>Remember the markers 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, and America will be unified 11.11.18(R)?
Yes. Anon remembers them well. Apparently as well as you. Have you read all of what what Q wrote about 11.3?
https://qalerts.app/?q=11.3
11.4?
https://qalerts.app/?q=11.4
11.6?
https://qalerts.app/?q=11.6
or 11.11.18?
https://qalerts.app/?q=11.11.18
I'm a Christian, but your interpretation is a stretch given full knowledge and comprehension of what Q wrote. Read more, Anon. The superficial is unsatisfying.
I won't even bother to translate, 8200 anon.
'Should of' is a clear violation of common grammar. 'Should have' is correct, Anon. You are correct about 'colour' and other trans-cultural spellings. Please feed the cat a nutritious and rewarding treat.
>Pay attention.
I do. I also think. I love the scriptures. I think you are wrong to interpret Q in this manner. Carry on.
Common and accepted. Not country-specific, but rather the rules of grammar.
https://www.lawlessenglish.com/english-mistakes/should-have-vs-should-of/
Ooh, I'm feelin' all hungry like.
Bless you for spreading the word, Anon. I do the same whenever the opportunity arises. I just don't understand why anyone would seek to interpret Q in this manner. I've also looked for connections but determined that Q's works should be read independently in their entirety before seeking to understand the ambiguous references, connections, or 'hidden meanings'. Q stands alone as a literary work without specific Biblical references even though Q inspires us to see the greater Biblical picture.
I provided a reference. There is a distinction of course, between spoken and written English. In the written form we seek to arrive at a consensus for the purposes of a mutual understanding. In the spoken form if Cockney rhyming slang is your thing by all means embrace it. If your English is of another derivative there is no need for you not to embrace it. If, however, you seek to write in standard English within the 'accepted' parameters of the language in order to be understood then good grammar is a part of that. It requires a mutual commitment for the purposes of understanding. The 'Book of Enoch' is quite interesting, but outside of the focus of this discussion.
I see members of the Q Team as spiritual and invoking their spirituality, however I do not see their message as religious or invoking a religion or as a religious movement. I see Q relating to hard-headed thinkers and reasoners with a spiritual appeal, not a fanaticist movement.
Well then I don't obtain my standards of written English grammar from The Book of Enoch. I respect the book. I also respect the rules of English grammar regardless of country or epoch. Especially those that say 'should have' is preferred over 'should of'.
>Can we do them Vlad the Impaler style?
Absolutely. It is the preferred method. Anon could ship 300-400 cedar or spruce stakes per month. Will you be the 'official inserter' in the impalement operation? I hope you have help (and gloves).